The RECORD

The Hands Around the Capitol 2007 pro-life event attracted a large crowd on Saturday afternoon in Augusta. The event began with an opening prayer from Bishop Richard J. Malone to the pro-life crowd of approximately 350. Carl Maddaleni of the Maine Vitae Society spoke at the event, which included tables featuring the Central Maine Pregnancy Support Center and the Knights of Columbus Pro-life Committee.

Mike Heath, the League's Executive Director, issued a press release earlier in the week inviting the media to contact the League for comments regarding the League's historically strong pro-life stand and the League's opposition to several pro-abortion bills in this upcoming Legislative session. In it, he states, "[Abortion] will go away when Maine chooses to protect and cherish innocent human life. I am absolutely dedicated to making that happen as soon as possible." Heath notes that Maine Senate President Beth Edmonds is introducing legislation to allow for Maine's tax dollars to directly pay for abortions for low-income women. "I will oppose this direct State funding of abortion-on-demand with every ounce of God-given energy I have," he said.

Two television news stations interviewed Heath at the Capitol Building ceremony shortly before 1:00 pm. WCSH (Channel 6, NBC) and WMTW (Channel 8, ABC) both planned to air Heath's commentary as part of their local broadcasts. Heath attended the Hands Around the Capitol ceremony along with his wife, Paulie, and many pro-life League supporters.
The League's Open House, held immediately after the Capitol Building ceremony where the Capitol Bell was symbolically rung 34 times, was a tremendously heartwarming affair. Three to four dozen League supporters packed the Ben Bubar League Headquarters Building at 70 Sewall Street. Mike and Paulie Heath hosted the Open House and enjoyed a spirit of fellowship with the League's many pro-life Christian friends and their families. Mike was heard to say, "With such Christ-centered and active supporters as these, and God's Word on our side, how can we fail?"

By Deal W. Hudson

(Part 3 of Some Questions for Mitt Romney)

As many people know, on November 18, 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled in Goodridge vs. Dept. of Public Health that same-sex couples should not be denied the right to marry in Massachusetts.

Since that time, Romney has pushed aggressively for a marriage-protection amendment in Massachusetts. This amendment passed its first round in the Legislature on January 2.

Gov. Romney, however, previously opposed a 2002 marriage-protection amendment that would have preempted the court ruling of November 2003.

Romney has also been one of the more outspoken politicians on the national scene in favor of defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and against activist judges whose rulings paved the way for gay marriage.

However, what most people don't know, and what is most overlooked by the media, is that John Adams had the foresight in 1780 to write specific provisions in the Massachusetts Constitution, the world's oldest functioning written Constitution, to prevent judicial activism of this sort.

Unfortunately, Romney made no attempt to exercise most of his constitutional options in order to block same-sex marriages before they began or stop them while in office, and Catholic activists would like to know why.

Romney could have declared the ruling null-and-void and unenforceable immediately after it was made in November of 2003. How? Article 5 of the Massachusetts Constitution says, "All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony shall be heard and determined by the governor and council." Romney could have said that the Court simply had no subject matter jurisdiction to rule over the definition of marriage.

Why was Romney silent on this point?

The Massachusetts Constitution also has specific provision for removing judges without cause via a "bill of address." Instead of responding to a problem of activist judges by going through a lengthy process of amending the Constitution, the offending judges can simply be removed from office for distorting the Constitution to impose their own views.

Such a procedure has been successfully used several times in the past in Massachusetts. In the spring of 2004 Romney could have supported the active grassroots effort and Democratic-sponsored legislation to remove the judges who wrote the Goodridge decision.

If Romney was genuinely troubled by the role of "activist judges" in the same-sex marriage issue, why did he refuse to support this move in 2004?

Next, Romney could have followed the precedent of Abraham Lincoln in the 1857 Dred Scott case-which Romney himself referred to in a Wall Street Journal editorial-and respected the decision of the Court with regard to only the litigants in THAT specific case.

As described in National Review by Prof. Hadley Arkes, Abraham Lincoln and his party did not try to set the slave Dred Scott free once the Supreme Court had confirmed him to remain in slavery. Lincoln only accepted the ruling for the parties in the specific case, and he did not allow the public policy of the whole country to be affected by the Supreme Court's decision.

Romney could have announced that he would respect the decision for the plaintiffs, but he could have insisted then that clerks issue licenses of marriage ONLY to couples who had come through comparable litigation and received a comparable order from a court.

If Romney was such an enthusiast for Lincoln's response to the Dred Scott decision and so determined to block same-sex marriage, why didn't he pursue the same strategy to try and block same-sex marriage from propagating beyond the small group of Goodridge litigants?

Finally, and most importantly, since the ruling stopped short of changing the previous marriage law, a strong governor could have simply refused to do anything.

Article X of the Massachusetts Constitution provided Romney clear justification for ignoring the court order. "The people of this Commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." And Article XX says, "The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the Legislature."

The justices who wrote the Goodridge decision knew this-which is why they specifically did not strike down the previous law. But the Legislature was then given 180 days in which to act.

GLAD Attorney Mary Bonauto, representing the seven gay couples who sued the state, agreed saying immediately after the 2003 Goodridge ruling, "The only task assigned to the Legislature is to come up with changes in the law that will allow gay couples to marry at the end of the 180-day period."

All three branches of government concurred. The SJC clarified their ruling in February of 2004 writing to the Senate, "The purpose of the stay was to afford the Legislature an opportunity to conform the existing statutes to the provisions of the Goodridge decision."

Romney himself in April of 2004 said, "The Legislature has yet to follow a directive from the SJC to change the state's marriage laws. I believe the reason that the Court gave 180 days to the Legislature was to allow the Legislature the chance to look through the laws and see how they should be adjusted for purposes of same-sex marriage; the Legislature didn't do that."

And State Sen. Bruce E. Tarr, a gay-marriage supporter, also said in April of 2004, he believed the Legislature would ultimately pass bills that would insert gender-neutral language into the state's marriage laws in time for the May 17, 2004 deadline. "No one should interpret inaction thus far with the idea that no action is forthcoming."

The Massachusetts Legislature NEVER acted to change the law. What happened between April 2003 and May 17 when Romney decided a "new law" existed and ordered town clerks to follow it by issuing same-sex marriage licenses?

We don't know.

And since the court ruling never ordered the Governor to do anything, why did Romney order justices of the peace to perform the unions or resign their positions if they objected on moral grounds?

We don't know.

Even if some people not familiar with the Massachusetts Constitution felt that somehow the Court did change the law, since the Court had violated their constitutional authority, what would have happened if Romney had had the courage to stand up and defy the Court?

Considering that the SJC had previously ruled they could not force the Legislature to perform their sworn constitutional duty, what consequences was Romney afraid of in defying the activist judges?

Would the Court have directed state employees to begin accepting applications from homosexuals for marriage licenses?

Would they have furthered their own power grab by trying to usurp executive powers from the Governor?

Would they have found him in contempt for ignoring a ruling that was in contempt of the Constitution and had no legal basis?

Virtually every pro-family conservative in the country urged Romney to stand strong at the time and defy the Court. The Family Research Council said, "Most important right now is for the governor to stand firm [and] not allow any marriage licenses to be handed out on May 17."

Concerned Women for America urged Romney to intervene via executive order and "put the brakes on this madness. He needs to make it clear that the law has not changed, and that on May 17 homosexual couples cannot make a mockery of God's institution of marriage."

Patrick Buchanan called on Romney to declare, "There is no basis for it [the Court's decision] in law' in the letter or spirit of the Constitution of our Commonwealth: And as I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth, I intend to disregard the court order of last November."

The Massachusetts Catholic Conference went on the record saying the SJC "exceeded their authority," and Gov. Romney failed in his duty to "uphold the Constitution."

Instead of standing up for his supposedly strong beliefs on marriage and defending the Constitution, he exercised his leadership by ordering justices of the peace to perform same-sex marriages.

Then he started traveling in other states actively campaigning against activist judges and against the very same-sex marriages that he could have blocked via executive order.

Romney's supporters and some conservative lawyers today still claim the Court somehow "changed the law" and say Romney could not have defied the Court without incurring subsequent court action. But these same people ignore the fact that it is the Massachusetts Constitution that bans courts from legislating from the bench.

Since Romney failed to exercise stronger executive leadership, today the Constitutional amendment he has enthusiastically backed, and which recently passed its first round in the Massachusetts Legislature, remains the most politically viable option for stopping same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

But, it still faces long odds of ever making it to the people for a vote, given pro-family losses in the new legislature where it must undergo a second approval. The presence of a new liberal Democratic governor who is already on the record as saying he will work hard to see it killed in the Legislature is another obstacle.

Romney has portrayed that he was "forced" into implementing homosexual marriages, but he refused to pursue other options backed by pro-family conservatives and his own state Constitution.

Now Romney campaigns against the marriages he himself, not the court, implemented and made a reality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the third part in my series on Gov. Mitt Romney. My intention is to help inform Catholics about the positions and record of the former Massachusetts Gov. as he explores the 2008 Republican nomination for the presidency positioned as a "social conservative."

Parts I and 2 dealt with Romney's record on abortion and emergency contraception, gay rights, gay-friendly judicial appointments, and gay adoption. In this part, I will raise the question of whether Gov. Romney could have stopped gay marriage in Massachusetts before it happened.

In the Pastors Update last week you read of the wonderful tools being made available to Christians in Maine to communicate with lawmakers and people of influence in our State.

Your support of the League throughout 2006 has helped us to make a tremendous impact on the public policy debates. By responding to alerts, contacting friends, voting on Election Day, and offering prayers, you've kept our political leaders aware of the convictions of pro-family citizens of Maine.

Our lawmakers will be gathering soon to debate and create new laws that will affect all of us in Maine. When they do, you can be sure that lobbyists from all of the anti-family and anti-Christian organizations will be walking the halls of the State House exerting their influence on our lawmakers as they consider various pieces of legislation. You know the groups: Planned Parenthood, the Maine Civil Liberties Union, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance of Maine (or as they have renamed themselves, "Equality Maine"). All of these organizations and their allies will begin their fresh assault on the family and the church in Maine. The drive to pass a Homosexual Marriage law will gain steam. Those politicians on the liberal left will be listening - and anxious to please them.

The League must be ready to fight back with new ideas and new strategies. By making a year-end gift, you can help us create a war chest to defend marriage and protect the family and the church. It would be extremely helpful if your church or organization could make a special year-end gift to boost the League as we prepare to face the attack against everything moral and right. You can rest assured we will put your donation to good use for the ideals we've always championed.

Our action alerts will be frequent in the new Legislature, so let's brace ourselves and resolve to stay strong in the fight for the family. As always, it's an honor to stand with you in a cause that belongs to the God who blesses us with every good thing.

GOD IS PRO-LIFE

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before you were formed in the body of your mother I had knowledge of you and before your birth I made you holy; I have given you the work of being a prophet to the nations."

You have probably heard this before, but I want to bring it to your attention: on September 11, 2001, over 4,000 people were killed. They were future leaders of this nation, doctors who could have saved many lives, scientists who may have found a cure for cancer, evangelists who may have lead thousands to the Lord. And all of these were loved by their families. This was an unspeakable tragedy. But do you also know that on September 12, 2001, another 4,000 people were killed and again on September 13th and 14th and another 4,000 each and every day from then till now? I did the math a few years ago and it comes to three lives lost every minute: one every 20 seconds, 24 hours a day, and seven days a week without a day off. If I have done my math correctly, the lives taken through abortion since it was legalized on January 22, 1973 is 35,380,000.

Let's compare those lost lives to those lost in American Wars.

* Revolutionary war... 25,324
* Civil War... 498,332
* World War II... 407,316
* Koren War... 54,246
* Vietnam War... 56,655
* Gulf War... 293
* Total... 1,042,176

That's right: many more lives have been lost through the war on the unborn, called abortion, than in all the wars Americans have fought in.

We believe in protecting life unless it is the life of unborn human beings. Did you know that the Endangered Species Act protects 3 amphibians, 56 birds, 7 clams, 2 crustaceans, 29 fish, 8 mammals, 32 reptiles, 2 snails and 42 plants and their unborn offspring BUT NOT AN UNBORN HUMAN BABY!

Goodyear Tire spent $35,000 to surgically attach fins on a pregnant loggerhead sea turtle that had suffered a shark attack. A spokesman for the company commented, "We're doing this for motherhood." A Florida man was arrested and fined for stealing turtle eggs from the beach. Look to the fines recently levied by the courts: $4,000 for killing cats, $1,360 and 60 days in jail for torturing and killing rabbits. The penalty for killing an unborn eagle in this country is a fine of up to $5,000 and up to five years in prison. No one is for hurting any animal but compare that to unborn human babies.

Some pastors feel that the church has to stay away from anything political. The fact is that the subject of the taking of innocent lives is first and foremost a Biblical issue and only second a political one.

In Leviticus 18:21 we read; "Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your god. I am the Lord."

So what can we do?

* As ambassadors of life, we can support life by how we vote.
* We can support life by how we share our lives with others
telling them about Jesus.
* We can support life by actively showing concern for life.
* We can support life in how we speak on behalf of the unborn.

We can also be ambassadors of forgiveness. Those who suffer from the emotional pain after having an abortion are all around us. They need our compassion and love.

And finally, we can support those organizations that stand up for the unborn. The Christian Civic League is one of those organizations. We support Maine Right to Life and encourage people in Maine to do the same. MRLC will be organizing "Hands Around the Capitol" again this year. Churches should encourage their people to drive to Augusta and participate to show their strong support for the life of the unborn.

THE BIBLICAL APPROACH

I was recently exposed to three radio broadcasts by Ravi Zacharias entitled The Mystery of Evil and the Miracle of Life. Ravi reveals the importance of approaching everything we believe and do from the Biblical point of view. This is in contrast to being influenced by current cultural thinking in our ministry. There are three 30 minute segments. Part 3 is the capstone of the series, where Ravi makes his strongest points. If you have time, listen to all three programs. You can get to his broadcasts by clicking here. If you don't have it already you can download the free edition of RealPlayer from Ravi's web site. The Christian Civic League approaches everything we do from what the Word of God says. We do this without apology even though critics say we should veil our Biblical position with another approach. Ravi makes essential observations in support of approaching today's problems from a Biblical starting point.

The Fayette Baptist Church invites you to join them for an evening of Christmas music and drama where you will journey across a candle-lit field with the rejoicing angels to experience a live reenactment of Mary and Joseph with the Christ child in a real stable surrounded by animals.

Come and see, and relive the reason for the season as Fayette Baptist Church presents a newly designed production of "The Living Nativity" on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, December 15, 16, and 17 in Fayette. Friday and Sunday presentations will begin at 7:00 pm. Saturday presentations will begin at 4:00 pm and 7:00 pm.

It's never too late to start a new holiday tradition. Hundreds of people, young and old alike have celebrated this unique event and have come away with a new appreciation for the humble, yet marvelous birth of Christ. Bring the entire family.

Admission is free and refreshments will be available. Due to limited seating, tickets are required. Call 685-9492 or email the Fayette Baptist Church office at info@fayettebaptistchurch.org today to reserve your tickets for the indoor portion of the program, and remember to dress warmly for the outdoor portion. For more information visit www.fayettebaptistchurch.org.

The League's executive director Michael Heath spoke at the growing Hermon Baptist Church on Sunday, November 13, 2006, in the morning service. As the League begins its 110th year of service to the people of Maine Heath told the church that he will not back down. The League maintains an unwavering loving stand in favor of sexual responsibility.

Heath drove to the church from his home in South China on Sunday morning. His wife, Paulie, joined him.

Paulie performed her popular upbeat original arrangement of "This little light of mine" during the Sunday School opening. Mike observed, "I was so impressed to see such a crosssection of ages in Sunday School joining Paulie in singing that joyous song."

Heath opened the Sunday School hour asking Christians to pray. The comfortable modern sanctuary was full of adults who listened attentively as Heath discussed the League and political/moral issues. After discussing the Prayer Partnership Network Heath opened the floor for questions. He spent the next forty minutes responding. One questioner asked Heath what he thought of Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is in line to become the first female Speaker of the House. Heath reminded everyone that she represents San Franciso and proudly marches in "gay" pride parades.

The morning worship service followed the Sunday School hour. Paulie sang two special songs and introduced the congregation to the Heath sons using a short video. The Heath's oldest son is a Junior at Grove City College studying history. The two youngest boys are in the United States Marines.

Paulie closed with her worshipful and soothing song "Make me pure." This song won a Los Angeles based online contest two weeks ago, and received acclaim at the morning worship service.

Mike preached on Genesis chapters 1 to 3. He presented a paradigm developed by evangelical theologian John Rankin regarding what he calls the "order of creation."

Many congregants approached Mike and Paulie at the end of the service to become members of the League, collect literature from the table and offer supportive comments about the morning presentation.

The Hermon Baptist Church has posted a handsome glossy black and gold sign depicting the Ten Commandments in the most prominent space available at their front entrance.

Pastor Garnett Shute told Mike that the church decided to put them there after Judge Roy Moore was fired in Alabama. As Paulie was waiting for Mike in the car she read down through the Commandments. The next day when Mike and Paulie were debriefing on their ministry in Hermon she commented, "Have you ever noticed that eight out of the Ten Commandments tell us what NOT to do?"

The League is often taken to task in the press for being "judgmental" and "negative." As with the Ten Commandments it is often appropriate and necessary to discuss what we ought NOT do.

The distortions of the League are simply one aspect of the liberal and "progressive" program to marginalize religion, especially Christianity.